If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   *POOF* goes the proof   (nypost.com) divider line 108
    More: Followup, Little Ice Age, warm spell, Attribution of recent climate change, global warming  
•       •       •

7229 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Dec 2013 at 6:17 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-07 10:20:22 PM  
PacManDreaming:  That sucks. Fortunately for me, the cigar lounge is only four blocks away. I had to go there tonight and it was like driving on a hockey rink.

I'm going to walk to the Quick Mart tomorrow, It's about a mile. [up hill. both ways], and get some smokes.  I would take the truck [F350 FWD] but some asshole put the wrong batteries in it. It doesn't have quite enough umph to turn over in this cold.
 
2013-12-07 10:22:00 PM  

traylor: What proof? Was there ever a proof?


data1.whicdn.com
 
2013-12-07 10:23:33 PM  
I saw "opinion", then saw he based it on this year's hurricane season. So basically, *plbbtbtbtb*
 
2013-12-07 10:24:43 PM  

fusillade762: warmists

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 250x272]


I LOL'd because I had the exact same response.
 
2013-12-07 10:55:27 PM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: FTA:  The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960.

The Philippines and much of Southeast Asia would disagree with you.

Oh, you mean the quietest in the  United States.  Well, that's a stupid thing to base a climate change argument off of.


Are you saying that a powerful hurricane in the Phillipines is proof of global warming, while the quietest U.S. hurricane season in 50 years is a stupid argument?
 
2013-12-07 10:58:19 PM  
nytmare:
albatros183:
ScaryBottles:


Ah, weekend Farkers. Lighten up a little.
 
2013-12-07 10:58:58 PM  

IlGreven: So, do you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the earth is warming?


Direct CO2 emission is probably a reasonably influential factor, but deforestation and our rather unfortunate alterations to the ocean's chemistry are probably bigger ones (the oceans being where most CO2 is photosynthesized out of the atmosphere), and damage to the ocean biospheres in general probably dwarf any other variation in the steady-state balance.

There are also plenty of other greenhouse gases that are human-related that probably add up to a lot more than our influence on atmospheric carbon content.

Basically, CO2 is the chemical that's getting the panic because, firstly, it's something that people are familiar with so it's easy to spread the word, secondly it's pretty ubiquitous as an industry byproduct (any process that burns anything makes CO2) so from an engineering standpoint it seems like a good specific point to attack the general problem, and thirdly most of the other factors are governed by the activities of psychopathic third-world nations we can't do fark-all about (deforestation and the ocean).

It's not actually the entirety of the potential shift in the steady-state point.

// Humans have had some pretty big impacts on global climate since about the middle bits of the Roman empire or so.  Actually the only reason it was as stable as it has been for a lot of the last couple centuries has been luck-- a lot of our contributions have kinda canceled each other out, e.g. burning coal produces greenhouse gases, also makes soot that results in climate cooling.

// Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.
 
2013-12-07 11:14:21 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-12-07 11:51:52 PM  

YodaTuna: Oh I'm sorry, I was expecting a scientific study.  I'm sure this journalist is much more educated than the thousands of climatologists around the world.


Like all those church guys knew better than Gallileo. Reality isn't subject to a vote. Either they have an explanation for why their models and predictions are failing or they don't. So far, it's the latter.
 
2013-12-07 11:52:05 PM  

Jim_Callahan: // Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.


Yeah, but but politics and grant money and egos, oh my!
 
2013-12-08 12:48:06 AM  

Sidecrab: Not having studied the subject I don't claim to know either way but artificial global warmingreminds me of the 'land bridges' controversy and also the claim that the universe is made of 95%  'dark matter'.

or example, it somehow wasn't front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there's been no surface global warming for well over a decade

Is this true? Citation needed?


No. It's the standard denialist method. It doesn't matter if it's global warming or any other graphable subject. They'll measure between selected points to make data show what they want it to show. In reality you can't just cut out data points to get the desired result, unless you want to get the wrong answer.
 
2013-12-08 12:58:14 AM  
When bullshiat this big gets posted can't we downvote it?   I wasted time reading it and posting this and I don't want anyone else to lose time or brain cells.

/I have beer that called dibs on those brain cells
 
2013-12-08 01:00:23 AM  
Then the piece of shiat who wrote the article has nothing to worry about when New York disappears under all that water that didn't melt from glaciers!
 
2013-12-08 01:04:28 AM  
Have you seen the new poof?  images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-12-08 01:12:12 AM  

Farker Soze: Global warming doesn't exist.  It's 5 degrees outside right now.  Explain that, liberals!


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-08 01:24:39 AM  

traylor: nytmare:
albatros183:
ScaryBottles:

Ah, weekend Farkers. Lighten up a little.


Man I was just looking for an excuse to use that one. If it wasn't you it would've been someone else.
 
2013-12-08 02:06:56 AM  
New York Post
Wall St. Journal
Blaze
FOX News

All reliable sources!!
 
2013-12-08 02:20:16 AM  
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.
 
2013-12-08 02:53:24 AM  
When climate change denialists come up with a theory to explain what's happening, I'll listen - just like I'll listen when they come up with an alternative theory on evolution. But so far, they haven't, so I can't.
 
2013-12-08 03:11:03 AM  

jso2897: When climate change denialists come up with a theory to explain what's happening, I'll listen - just like I'll listen when they come up with an alternative theory on evolution. But so far, they haven't, so I can't.


Tell me why this is just weather:

pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-12-08 03:16:58 AM  

MrEricSir: Same author has lots of wonderful reads.

Here he claims that the idea that hetrosexuals can get AIDS is a myth -- therefore who cares about AIDS?

Here he says stem cell research is a "scam" because in some cases you don't need stem cells for certain types of research.

Here he claims there aren't really any homeless vets, because someone once looked and couldn't find any. Therefore, fark homeless people.

Real quality journalism there. And not at all served up with a heavy-handed dose of bias, no sir!


FATALITY!
 
2013-12-08 03:31:25 AM  

starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.


Show us where the death spiral touched you
nsidc.org
 
2013-12-08 04:58:56 AM  
No poofters!
 
2013-12-08 05:28:22 AM  

PacManDreaming: Fortunately for me, the cigar lounge is only four blocks away. I had to go there tonight and it

was like driving on a hockey rink.

Seriously..?

Bad, uncommon weather that concerns you..particularly with regards to driving..and you couldn't  WALK a lousy four blocks..?

That is a failure of common sense that mere geographical location cannot account for..
 
2013-12-08 06:31:23 AM  

starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.


...also, you know why all this year, the Daily Fail et al trumpeted 15 years ago?

2013-15=1998. AKA the hottest year in recorded history. When you've been to the peak of Everest, everything's downhill, even if it's still higher than everything else.
 
2013-12-08 08:11:18 AM  

LewDux: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x340]

Oblig


Nobody posted the graph you are rebutting..

IlGreven: starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.

...also, you know why all this year, the Daily Fail et al trumpeted 15 years ago?

2013-15=1998. AKA the hottest year in recorded history. When you've been to the peak of Everest, everything's downhill, even if it's still higher than everything else.


The problem is, we were told there would be higher peaks and that the higher peaks would be the problem. As we have just passed the peak of everest, yes we are quite high up but the only way is down and people are insisting we could find a higher peak in just a bit further...

jjorsett: YodaTuna: Oh I'm sorry, I was expecting a scientific study.  I'm sure this journalist is much more educated than the thousands of climatologists around the world.

Like all those church guys knew better than Gallileo. Reality isn't subject to a vote. Either they have an explanation for why their models and predictions are failing or they don't. So far, it's the latter.


Yup, funny how the pause  is retconned into being canon all this time and they still cannot explain the deviation from their models other than the explanation that the models are just crap and do not predict at all well.

Make predictions for more than 10 years in the future, test the predictions and if they are right show they stay correct for 5 years (currently up to 1998 predictions tested between the dates 2008-2013) and then come back and say you have something.

Until that point, you have nothing but alarmism.

I`d really like to see the predictions from 1998 or before that shows the last five years accurately...
 
2013-12-08 08:54:08 AM  
weather ≠ climate

/that is all
 
2013-12-08 09:03:10 AM  

dready zim: I`d really like to see the predictions from 1998 or before that shows the last five years accurately...


Surely you understand that science is not static, particularly with something as massive as global climate modelling? And that scientific predictions are based on best-info at the time, and subject to change?
 
2013-12-08 09:54:26 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Tell me why this is just weather:


The part where it says "December" is a hell of a start.
 
2013-12-08 09:59:20 AM  
As near as I can tell, the entire argument against climate change boils down to this:

1. "I am afraid of the implications if climate change is true"
2. "Therefore climate change can't be true"
3. "Therefore, everybody who says otherwise is some combination of foolish, lying, in it for the money, or part of a global conspiracy by the scientific establishment to suppress dissenting views"
4. "Having invested myself so deeply in this belief, I will repeat any lie, no matter how easily disproven, and ignore any evidence, no matter how thoroughly validated, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance."

Did I miss anything?
 
2013-12-08 10:06:45 AM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: Bad, uncommon weather that concerns you..particularly with regards to driving..and you couldn't WALK a lousy four blocks..?

That is a failure of common sense that mere geographical location cannot account for..


Well, I did have other places to go and other things to get. If I was just gonna go sit up there for a couple of hours, I would've walked. We were only expecting to be iced in for a day, two at the most(it usually melts by the middle of the second day). We're on day three, now, which is almost unheard of here. It's been literally 30 years since we had an ice storm where we were home-bound this long. It hit a day or two before Christmas, 1983.
 
2013-12-08 10:30:31 AM  
Went and read both the article and Fumento's wikipedia page.
Seems like I wasted some valuable time with the first step of my plan.
 
2013-12-08 10:52:43 AM  
So when will we know if we've fixed the climate?

/article still gave me a migraine
//it's FARK, lighten up Francis
 
2013-12-08 11:50:48 AM  

LasersHurt: dready zim: I`d really like to see the predictions from 1998 or before that shows the last five years accurately...

Surely you understand that science is not static, particularly with something as massive as global climate modelling? And that scientific predictions are based on best-info at the time, and subject to change?


Of course, but surely you understand that the heart of science is making predictions that at some point turn out right. It is how you test your science. If you do not have that core feature your science and your scientific process is bad. If you cannot predict an outcome then it is not even science, just the scientific process which can be used to examine blatantly untrue things and so means nothing in and of itself.

The scientific process is being followed but as I say, that means nothing by itself. You could follow the scientific process to study astrology for example but astrology will never make accurate predictions so if you check the accuracy of the predictions made by astrology against reality and you would find them lacking, you would (rightly) dismiss astrology even though a lot of people believe in it and make a lot of money from it. In the right circles you might even say there was a consensus, which also means nothing either and does not prove astrology. This leads us so the conclusion that astrology is bad science even if we follow the scientific process.

At the point you make predictions that match real world observations then your science is passable but needs double checking to make sure your scientific process is on place.

We are not past that part.
 
2013-12-08 12:05:03 PM  
 
2013-12-08 12:41:38 PM  

DesertDemonWY: jso2897: When climate change denialists come up with a theory to explain what's happening, I'll listen - just like I'll listen when they come up with an alternative theory on evolution. But so far, they haven't, so I can't.

Tell me why this is just weather:

[pbs.twimg.com image 850x425]


Are you aware of what that image represents? RTMA stands for real-time meso-scale analysis. The map represents conditions over the course of a single hour.

In short, this is just weather because it's a weather map.


Now what you should be asking yourself is why did you think this was a valid question for you to ask? You must have picked up this image quite recently and apparently decided to post it without knowing even the basics of what it represents. Why did you think this was a good idea? How much reasoning or understanding are you actually using when approaching this topic.
 
2013-12-08 12:58:14 PM  

DesertDemonWY: starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.

Show us where the death spiral touched you
[nsidc.org image 850x850]



What you're posting represents a single point in time.   As you should be aware by now, looking at such a small window can be misleading as it relies on only a subset of data. Let's instead look at more than just one point in time, and represented numerically so it's easier to make comparisons over time:

nsidc.org

What you're posting is analogous to  weather (short-term conditions) when we're actually interested in is  climate(longer-term trends)

You seem to be making the same mistake over and over. What about this concept do you not understand?We can help.
 
2013-12-08 01:26:45 PM  

Jim_Callahan: IlGreven: So, do you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the earth is warming?

Direct CO2 emission is probably a reasonably influential factor, but deforestation and our rather unfortunate alterations to the ocean's chemistry are probably bigger ones (the oceans being where most CO2 is photosynthesized out of the atmosphere), and damage to the ocean biospheres in general probably dwarf any other variation in the steady-state balance.

There are also plenty of other greenhouse gases that are human-related that probably add up to a lot more than our influence on atmospheric carbon content.

Basically, CO2 is the chemical that's getting the panic because, firstly, it's something that people are familiar with so it's easy to spread the word, secondly it's pretty ubiquitous as an industry byproduct (any process that burns anything makes CO2) so from an engineering standpoint it seems like a good specific point to attack the general problem, and thirdly most of the other factors are governed by the activities of psychopathic third-world nations we can't do fark-all about (deforestation and the ocean).

It's not actually the entirety of the potential shift in the steady-state point.

// Humans have had some pretty big impacts on global climate since about the middle bits of the Roman empire or so.  Actually the only reason it was as stable as it has been for a lot of the last couple centuries has been luck-- a lot of our contributions have kinda canceled each other out, e.g. burning coal produces greenhouse gases, also makes soot that results in climate cooling.

// Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.


Literally everything in this post is wrong.
 
2013-12-08 01:32:15 PM  

dready zim: LewDux: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x340]

Oblig

Nobody posted the graph you are rebutting..


The underlying fallacy that graph is meant to argue against (drawing potentially misleading trends from a subset of data) has been used in this thread, yet again by DesertDemonWY.


dready zim: IlGreven: starsrift: That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this "pause" could extend into the 2030s.

Oh, so now, like you were told years ago, you realize the science says that we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now as a result of natural causes, not a warming one!

FFS, these denialists are clutching at anything for the privilege of shiatting toxins into the air.

...also, you know why all this year, the Daily Fail et al trumpeted 15 years ago?

2013-15=1998. AKA the hottest year in recorded history. When you've been to the peak of Everest, everything's downhill, even if it's still higher than everything else.

The problem is, we were told there would be higher peaks and that the higher peaks would be the problem. As we have just passed the peak of everest, yes we are quite high up but the only way is down and people are insisting we could find a higher peak in just a bit further...


The issue is that it's difficult to make judgements from just a single year or short period of time - using your analogy, it makes it difficult to state what is 'up' and 'down' from just looking at a single peak, when what we're interested in is the height of the mountain range.

On a side note, and if you're interested in further reading, what IlGreven is describing is termed regression to the mean, or in the context of the claim he's arguing against, a regression fallacy.


dready zim: jjorsett: YodaTuna: Oh I'm sorry, I was expecting a scientific study.  I'm sure this journalist is much more educated than the thousands of climatologists around the world.

Like all those church guys knew better than Gallileo. Reality isn't subject to a vote. Either they have an explanation for why their models and predictions are failing or they don't. So far, it's the latter.

Yup, funny how the pause  is retconned into being canon all this time and they still cannot explain the deviation from their models other than the explanation that the models are just crap and do not predict at all well.


Refer back to your previous point and what IlGreven and I have pointed out. Another explanation is that the trend is potentially spurious (again, regression to the mean) because of the influence of the very strong ESNO event of 1997-1998. Back to the mountain analogy, it only seems like temperatures are declining if you set your start point at the top of Mt. Everest.

In addition, you have to realize two things about the sort of models that we're talking about, as you're expressing some misconceptions here. First,  their primary focus isn't to reproduce shorter-term variation, and therefore unsurprisingly show less skill at that scale. They're climate models, not weather models. Second, when you see a model prediction, it's an aggregate of many, many individual runs of a climate model - analogous to an average and therefore will not portray short-term variation as well. The sort of 'pause' that is being currently observed is not unknown in climate models (see below) and therefore isn't relflective of some sort of failing.
img.fark.net
From Easterling & Wehner 2009 showing an individual climate model run.

In short, your percieved "failure" has more to do with not knowing what the explanations are.


dready zim: Make predictions for more than 10 years in the future, test the predictions and if they are right show they stay correct for 5 years (currently up to 1998 predictions tested between the dates 2008-2013) and then come back and say you have something.

Until that point, you have nothing but alarmism.

I`d really like to see the predictions from 1998 or before that shows the last five years accurately...


You're in danger of running into the same fallacy that the graph that LewDux posted is arguing against. I'll repost it here for reference:

img.fark.net

The idea is that it's difficult to make inferences about longer periods of time by using only short periods (like the 5 years you propose) because of shorter-term variation. You can think of it as looking for a longer-term 'signal' that's mixed up with shorter-term 'noise'. Again, what you can tell from only 5 years can be misleading, as one can see in the temperature record again and again. In short, your 5-year yardstick has given you wrong answers in the past, and will do so again in the future.
 
2013-12-08 01:36:36 PM  
Subby, do you want to know how three simple words tell me that you don't know the first thing about science?
 
2013-12-08 01:41:45 PM  

WelldeadLink: Denier land: How deniers view global warming, the video

[img.fark.net image 640x388]



Just as the phenomenon of interest can be masked by shorter-term variation, it can also just as easily be masked by longer-term variation.

For example, if you want to look at seasonal changes in temperature, you would be misled by looking at just a week - seasonal change would be very hard to detect as it would be swamped out by diurnal changes and one could mistakenly state that seasonal changes do not exist. Just as easily, seasonal change would be swamped out if you looked at, say, a thousand years - seasonal change would be also be very hard to detect if the resolution of the data was yearly or longer, and one could again mistakenly state that seasonal changes do not exist.

Unsurprisingly, the scale one uses should take into account the scale at which the actual phenomenon of interest actually occurs.
 
2013-12-08 01:46:36 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Inquisitive Inquisitor: FTA:  The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960.

The Philippines and much of Southeast Asia would disagree with you.

Oh, you mean the quietest in the  United States.  Well, that's a stupid thing to base a climate change argument off of.

Are you saying that a powerful hurricane in the Phillipines is proof of global warming, while the quietest U.S. hurricane season in 50 years is a stupid argument?


If you understood the concept of distributions within  a system, then that idea might not hurt your brain so much.  You don't, so there you go.
 
2013-12-08 02:11:03 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Unsurprisingly, the scale one uses should take into account the scale at which the actual phenomenon of interest actually occurs.


And because you only care about temperature change from 1950 to 1998, that's the only information which should be used. Got it.
 
2013-12-08 02:25:39 PM  

dready zim: Of course, but surely you understand that the heart of science is making predictions that at some point turn out right.


This is wrong on several levels.
 
2013-12-08 02:36:09 PM  

Herr Flick's Revenge: A complex system that is not fully understood isn't behaving as predicted?
That's weird.


Exactly what I have been saying. Accurate  records only go back about 200 years. The reason hurricanes seem so much bigger/badder is that there is so much developed area to destroy.

/Global warming gives certain people something to believe in and a way to feel useful.
//And gives them ad hominem attacks when they hear something "they just know" can't be true
 
2013-12-08 02:55:34 PM  

Lee451: The reason hurricanes seem so much bigger/badder is that there is so much developed area to destroy.


Oh my, I bet scientists hadn't accounted for increased development compared to the 1950s when doing storm analysis.

If only we had some sort of way of measuring hurricanes - some way of telling which ones were bigger than others independent of where they made landfall.  Like, if you could tell how fast their winds were, how much area they covered, how long they lasted, what times of year they happened, that kind of stuff.  Maybe even make a scale for it.

Then you could put them all in a big spreadsheet and see if average storm strength was increasing over time, without relying on changeable metrics like cost of the damages.
 
2013-12-08 04:35:33 PM  

WelldeadLink: Damnhippyfreak: Unsurprisingly, the scale one uses should take into account the scale at which the actual phenomenon of interest actually occurs.

And because you only care about temperature change from 1950 to 1998, that's the only information which should be used. Got it.



Nope. Other scales can inform. The problem comes from when looking exclusively at a short time scale or a long time scale (as in the video you posted).
 
2013-12-08 05:24:44 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:

What you're posting is analogous to  weather (short-term conditions) when we're actually interested in is  climate(longer-term trends)

[ice-extent.jpg].


35 years of data is long term relative to the planet's climate?

I know...we've only had reliable satellite ice coverage data for that long; I just don't like people saying 'the decline from 1998 is too short to be relevant' then turn around and say that only 20 years more data is, when AGW is generally dated to have 'begun' around 1800. (or arguably much earlier as posted above in the thread)

Also depends on what scale or set of data the chart is using:

nsidc.org

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu

/skeptic but not a denier
 
2013-12-08 05:28:01 PM  
Whoops, should have previewed those images came out larger than I thought they would...
 
2013-12-08 06:42:31 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Denier land: How deniers view global warming, the video

[img.fark.net image 640x388]


Just as the phenomenon of interest can be masked by shorter-term variation, it can also just as easily be masked by longer-term variation.

For example, if you want to look at seasonal changes in temperature, you would be misled by looking at just a week - seasonal change would be very hard to detect as it would be swamped out by diurnal changes and one could mistakenly state that seasonal changes do not exist. Just as easily, seasonal change would be swamped out if you looked at, say, a thousand years - seasonal change would be also be very hard to detect if the resolution of the data was yearly or longer, and one could again mistakenly state that seasonal changes do not exist.

Unsurprisingly, the scale one uses should take into account the scale at which the actual phenomenon of interest actually occurs.


This is very similar to the way I view your participation in these threads.
The fact that you argue in favor of warming put the lie to any objective scientific knowledge or interests in the subject. Your stance is strictly politically motivated within a discrete period and topic.
You use any narrow position you can conjure in your selfish, self-interestind mind to justify your positions, which are, ultimately, rhetorical and belief-based and have nothing to do with objective reality any more (if they ever did.).
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report